" American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management."

I love how the council wants to overturn the vote to give these suckers more money when they breached the last contract. There must be serious bribe $.¢ going on here, in the form of campaign contributions.

skinink:" American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management."

skinink:" American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management."

FTFA:...the City Council ordered the Arizona company to shut off the data-collecting cameras.

....American Traffic Solutions left the sensors inside the cameras active for months to collect the data without the city's knowledge.

The city may not legally have the right to remove the company's equipment on their own or shut them off, but they can damn sure cover the damn things so that they can't keep recording. Grab some black trash bags, duct tape, and a cherry picker. Problem solved.

penthesilea:FTFA:...the City Council ordered the Arizona company to shut off the data-collecting cameras.

....American Traffic Solutions left the sensors inside the cameras active for months to collect the data without the city's knowledge.

The city may not legally have the right to remove the company's equipment on their own or shut them off, but they can damn sure cover the damn things so that they can't keep recording. Grab some black trash bags, duct tape, and a cherry picker. Problem solved.

earthworm2.0:why is the company continuing to collect data such a bad thing? I'm not saying its right, I'm saying i dont understand whats so bad about it. They cant do anything with it, its just data collection.

Insurance companies would love to see this data to adjust local rates. They prove x percent of traffic drives unsafe and everyone's rates goes up.

I just had an evil thought... Private red light camera scam. Just have to include "This is a final judgement and there is no appeal, submit payment in a timely fashion to:" type language. Like they have on L.A. parking tickets.

This whole article doesn't make sense. So the City is angry at the company b/c they didn't turn off their electronics, but the City has told the voters to go frell themselves when the voters asked them to turn off the cameras, but the company has turned off the cameras and not the other electronics and that's the confusion, and so the company must have illegally complied with the voters even though a judge said the voters can go frell themselves, and... what?

The thing about some of these red light cameras is they record a video and still captures is what the victim sees. Allows for further interpretation of a fraudulent ticket in court(other conditions caused you to violate red light).

Leaving them on with 'automated license plate recognition' can generate an interesting data stream. Providing the company still has full access to the license plate database to get the owners name with it.

Police cars now have automated license plate recognition cameras that work in real time to identify vehicles/owners that are wanted. The database does store every plate it sees for an indeterminate amount of time. Be careful on your alibi for an unrelated court case, as they may access your vehicles location(violation of privacy, even in a public driving space) and you trying to say that you lent it out to another. If no picture of driver taken by the ALPR, then you are mostly good.

sheep snorter:The thing about some of these red light cameras is they record a video and still captures is what the victim sees. Allows for further interpretation of a fraudulent ticket in court(other conditions caused you to violate red light).

Leaving them on with 'automated license plate recognition' can generate an interesting data stream. Providing the company still has full access to the license plate database to get the owners name with it.

Police cars now have automated license plate recognition cameras that work in real time to identify vehicles/owners that are wanted. The database does store every plate it sees for an indeterminate amount of time. Be careful on your alibi for an unrelated court case, as they may access your vehicles location(violation of privacy, even in a public driving space) and you trying to say that you lent it out to another. If no picture of driver taken by the ALPR, then you are mostly good.

The plate recognition software I've seen police use cross reference the plate it sees with a database of known stolen vehicles or other flags, not to see where everyone's been everywhere all the time. I'm sure that's coming, probably with the current hardware, but I'm not aware of any police forces using it that way.

earthworm2.0:why is the company continuing to collect data such a bad thing? I'm not saying its right, I'm saying i dont understand whats so bad about it. They cant do anything with it, its just data collection.

They're just collecting data in the same way that Facebook "just collects data". The license plate numbers of the cars, where they go, how often, and for what duration is all in the data. I'm sure that they already routinely sell that information.

The plate recognition software I've seen police use cross reference the plate it sees with a database of known stolen vehicles or other flags, not to see where everyone's been everywhere all the time.

In Massachusetts they keep records of all plates scanned so they can go back and see where people were or who was there. A bill filed this session would require tracking records to be deleted within 48 hours unless there is a request for preservation.

Stone Meadow:Bungles: Drivers who whine about traffic cameras are usually terrible drivers, who think they're unique and special snowflakes, who have an innate sense of which traffic laws are unnecessary.

They're usually the same people who scream at bicyclists running red lights. Just after they went 60 in a 30 zone.

Luckily we're only a few decades away from when cars automtically are locked from exceeding the speed limit in an area.

Bungles:Stone Meadow: Bungles: Drivers who whine about traffic cameras are usually terrible drivers, who think they're unique and special snowflakes, who have an innate sense of which traffic laws are unnecessary.

They're usually the same people who scream at bicyclists running red lights. Just after they went 60 in a 30 zone.

Luckily we're only a few decades away from when cars automtically are locked from exceeding the speed limit in an area.

We had a field trip, back in school, to a red light. The project was to record traffic violations, as if we knew what they really were. Only now do I realize that it was all just a scheme, a greater plot in part of my teacher, to use us innocent children as pawns to compile data. I'm ashamed of my involvement and hope society can forgive me.

earthworm2.0:why is the company continuing to collect data such a bad thing? I'm not saying its right, I'm saying i dont understand whats so bad about it. They cant do anything with it, its just data collection.

if it were a person, standing on the corner counting, it would be 100% legal.given that they are electronically doing the same thing? and it is not the government and they are not even taking pictures?meh, I am totally ok with this

I keep thinking about setting up my camera looking out the window and collecting dataalas, I am on the 20th floor

make me some tea:skinink: " American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management."

Wow, the establishment really doesn't like voters there, do they?

The will of the people causes them too many problems.

It always has. California is a disaster because of the Prop system. Funny how you can get anything passed statewide no matter how destructive it is, but at the local level the voters can't pass anything. What a bass-ackward state. But, it's the way the voters want it to be. You get the government you want, and, ultimately, deserve.

Adolf Oliver Nipples:It always has. California is a disaster because of the Prop system. Funny how you can get anything passed statewide no matter how destructive it is, but at the local level the voters can't pass anything. What a bass-ackward state. But, it's the way the voters want it to be. You get the government you want, and, ultimately, deserve.

THISThey vote for new measures, but dont include new revenue to pay for the measures.This would all be fixed if they had automatic increases to income taxes and property taxes to pay for a balanced budget.ROFL

m053486:One of the few good things about the laws of Virginia is that the red light tickets I get in the mail go directly in the trash.

/not a careless driver, there just happen to be cameras around a major intersection I go through at least twice daily, and they tag you if you enter the intersection on yellow

I don't believe you. Yellow means you should stop if you can safely stop. Obviously if the light turns yellow when you're 5 feet from the intersection, you can't stop, but I see way too many people run red lights.

namatad: ...their data could actually be used to save lives and greatly improve safety

Show us one...JUST ONE instance of that ever happening. *Crickets*

Look, this company exits for one reason...to make money, and they aren't giving away shiat for free, much less valuable information. The ONLY reason they left the cameras on was that they hoped to reactivate their contract with the city, whereupon they could have turned in all the violations they had gathered in the meantime. Why else do you think they sued the voters, and got a judge to rule the voters couldn't overrule the contract?

Hopefully the voters will convince the Board to finally cancel the contract. Nothing like the threat of getting voted out of office to get them to see the light.

Stone Meadow:namatad: ...their data could actually be used to save lives and greatly improve safety

Show us one...JUST ONE instance of that ever happening. *Crickets*

Look, this company exits for one reason...to make money, and they aren't giving away shiat for free, much less valuable information. The ONLY reason they left the cameras on was that they hoped to reactivate their contract with the city, whereupon they could have turned in all the violations they had gathered in the meantime. Why else do you think they sued the voters, and got a judge to rule the voters couldn't overrule the contract?

Hopefully the voters will convince the Board to finally cancel the contract. Nothing like the threat of getting voted out of office to get them to see the light.

of COURSE the company exists to make moneyDUHbut they are making money by stopping, or attempting to stop people from committing vehicular manslaughter by running red lights

so yahbetter yetabsolutely NOTHING that the company is doing interferes with anyone's privacy ...

"Yet Doherty's argument goes deeper - to the mixed bag of statistical analysis on the public benefit of the cameras. Studies have gone both ways, but the most relevant one for New Jersey was released last November, based on the incidence of accidents at camera intersections around the state. The study found that overall the number of crashes went up 0.9 percent, while the incidence of right-angle crashes, which tend to be the worst, went down 15 percent. Doherty points out, however, that the rate of rear-end collisions went up 20 percent and resulted in more injuries, and that severity of injuries in the "T-bone" crashes increased, even as the incidence dipped.Clearly, the devil is in the details - and the details, while not yet based on long-term observation, don't make the case that intersections with cameras are safer."

It's funny, how people say "safety" and it's magically supposed to be true. It never occurs to them to follow the money. If red-light cameras were money losers or revenue-neutral they wouldn't exist, safety be damned. They are fundraisers, pure and simple.

Adolf Oliver Nipples:Stone Meadow: So, you still have nothing to say about their info being used to improve traffic safety, eh?

That's a myth. Red light cameras do not improve safety, they generate money.

"Yet Doherty's argument goes deeper - to the mixed bag of statistical analysis on the public benefit of the cameras. Studies have gone both ways, but the most relevant one for New Jersey was released last November, based on the incidence of accidents at camera intersections around the state. The study found that overall the number of crashes went up 0.9 percent, while the incidence of right-angle crashes, which tend to be the worst, went down 15 percent. Doherty points out, however, that the rate of rear-end collisions went up 20 percent and resulted in more injuries, and that severity of injuries in the "T-bone" crashes increased, even as the incidence dipped.Clearly, the devil is in the details - and the details, while not yet based on long-term observation, don't make the case that intersections with cameras are safer."

It's funny, how people say "safety" and it's magically supposed to be true. It never occurs to them to follow the money. If red-light cameras were money losers or revenue-neutral they wouldn't exist, safety be damned. They are fundraisers, pure and simple.

They generate money.... from people breaking the law. Screw those people.

Bungles:Are you suggesting speed limits have just been randomly chosen by moon-goblins to irritate you, as opposed to vast amounts of global traffic statistics over 50 years?

As a matter of fact, yes. Speed limits should be set to the 85th percentile. In practice that is how fast people go anyway regardless of the posted speed limit. There are a few exceptions, but there are enough instances of speed traps to establish a pattern of people setting them artificially low to raise funds.

Note that speed traps do not exist in states where the accumulated fine money goes to the state and not to the locale that issues the ticket.

Adolf Oliver Nipples:Stone Meadow: So, you still have nothing to say about their info being used to improve traffic safety, eh?

That's a myth. Red light cameras do not improve safety, they generate money.

"Yet Doherty's argument goes deeper - to the mixed bag of statistical analysis on the public benefit of the cameras. Studies have gone both ways, but the most relevant one for New Jersey was released last November, based on the incidence of accidents at camera intersections around the state. The study found that overall the number of crashes went up 0.9 percent, while the incidence of right-angle crashes, which tend to be the worst, went down 15 percent. Doherty points out, however, that the rate of rear-end collisions went up 20 percent and resulted in more injuries, and that severity of injuries in the "T-bone" crashes increased, even as the incidence dipped.Clearly, the devil is in the details - and the details, while not yet based on long-term observation, don't make the case that intersections with cameras are safer."

It's funny, how people say "safety" and it's magically supposed to be true. It never occurs to them to follow the money. If red-light cameras were money losers or revenue-neutral they wouldn't exist, safety be damned. They are fundraisers, pure and simple.

I agree with you, which is why I was calling out namatad for claiming the data could be used to improve traffic safety.

Bungles:Are you suggesting speed limits have just been randomly chosen by moon-goblins to irritate you, as opposed to vast amounts of global traffic statistics over 50 years?

As a matter of fact, a great many speed limits have been set by one or two cranky old farts in a neighborhood getting up a rabble to frighten the city council. A lot more have been concocted by commercial speed traps and red light traps. State and national highways tend to be governed by engineers. Local streets are governed by the ever-reasonable local governments and by commercial interests. If it works for commercial homeowners' association companies (and it does) it will work for commercial traffic trap extortion as well. If you have either, get out there and overturn the entity that enables it.